E-NEWS: 31 May 2002

Welcome to the latest edition of enews produced by Steele & Co. In this issue we report on:

* FIXED-TERM EMPLOYEE REGULATIONS DELAYED
* THE RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS IN TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS
* WORLD CUP FEVER
* IMPLIED TRUST AND CONFIDENCE CONTINUES UNTIL DECISION TO DISMISS

* FIXED-TERM EMPLOYEE REGULATIONS DELAYED

The EC Directive on Fixed Term Work which aims to prevent fixed term employees being treated less favourably than similar permanent employees and to limit the use of successive fixed term contracts has been delayed in its incorporation into English law.

The Directive was due to be implemented by the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 ('the Regulations') which would have come into force on 10th July 2002. However, due to delays in the Employment Bill receiving Royal Assent it is now anticipated that the Regulations will not come into force until 1st October 2002. We will keep you informed of developments.

* THE RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS IN TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS

The Court of Appeal case of Kovacs v Queen Mary & Westfield College has up held a decision awarding costs against the Applicant.

The Applicant Dr Kovacs made a claim for unfair dismissal, and unlawful sex and race discrimination but was found by an employment tribunal to have made these claims up as part of a personal vendetta against a particular person. On this basis, the employment tribunal ordered that the Respondent's legal costs be paid in the sum of £62,000 in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001.

Dr Kovacs appealed against this decision on the basis that the employment tribunal should have taken into account the Applicant's ability to pay the costs when making the award, however this argument was not accepted by the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed.

Cheryl Edmonds Associate Solicitor of the London Employment Team comments: ' This decision reinforces the view that parties who act unreasonably will be penalised appropriately irrespective of their financial circumstances. However it is important that we remember that the awarding of costs by an employment tribunal is very much the exception rather than the rule and that in the majority of cases each side will bear their own costs'.

* WORLD CUP FEVER

With the World Cup kicking off today we thought it important to highlight again possible employment issues that may arise from the employees wanting to watch games many of which are being broadcast in the early hours of the morning.

If you have decided to allow employees to watch England games at their place of work to avoid the potential of unauthorised absences then it is important that these employees are reminded that they are still at work and therefore should behave in a responsible manner. This should include reiterating that drinking to excess, fighting and the use of bad language may be considered to be acts of gross misconduct, and reminding employees of any alcohol or drug policies you have in place.

If a misconduct situation does arise then the company disciplinary procedure should always be followed. Please contact us if you do not have a disciplinary policy or your current policy needs improving.

* IMPLIED TRUST AND CONFIDENCE CONTINUES UNTIL DECISION TO DISMISS

An interesting preliminary point concerning the implied contractual term of trust and confidence has been determined in the Court of Session in the case King v University Court of the University of St Andrews.

This decision distinguishes the well known case of Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] where the House of Lords decided, that as a matter of policy, the manner of dismissal could not give rise to breach of the implied term of mutual trust of confidence. However, the Court of Session in Mr King's case has interpreted this as meaning that the implied duty of trust and confidence cannot be breached after the decision to dismiss has been taken but may be breached before this decision is made. On this basis Mr King was able to rely on a breach of the implied duty by reason of a flawed investigation into a disciplinary offence he was accused of having committed.

Owen Bellinfantie a Solicitor in the London Employment Team comments: 'This reaffirms the belief that employers when conducting disciplinary proceedings should do so in a thorough manner as they can no longer rely on the Johnson case as a defence for only paying lip service to disciplinary proceedings'

WE CAN HELP YOU:

Please use the links on this page if you:

* Want to receive more information/advice on any of the matters in this edition (please give details of the matter you require advice on).

* Want advice on any employment matters

* The employment team also conducts practical in-house training and workshops for companies on a wide range of issues including:-

Managing sickness absence/stress in the workplace
Misconduct and the disciplinary procedure
Poor performance
Handling redundancy situations
Avoiding unlawful discrimination claims
Avoiding unfair dismissals
Employment law update and practical advice for line managers

* Our aim is to offer line managers practical training to ensure that costly mistakes are avoided. All of the training workshops are tailored to meet the exact requirements of each individual business.

* If you are interested in finding out more about such training please do not hesitate to give us a call.

Visit our web site http://www.steeleslaw.co.uk

See this and other articles from Steele & Co on the web at: hrmguide.co.uk

This bulletin is intended for general guidance only and should not be relied upon without detailed legal advice on your specific circumstances.

This article copyright © 2002 Steeles Law. All rights reserved.